That said, it’s still difficult to say for sure. As I’m typing my answer to this question on July 3, the Rangers only have 11 forwards listed on the pro side of their CapFriendly page, three of which currently are RFAs without new deals—Spooner, Hayes and Vesey—and I’d bet at least one of those three is deal in the upcoming weeks. That 11 also includes Peter Holland and Matt Beleskey, both of whom saw ample time in Hartford last year, and does not include Chytil or Andersson. The Rangers still could make a bargain-bin UFA signing or two still for depth purposes, but even assuming that there still should be ample space for both to make the roster if they perform adequately enough in training camp and pre-season.
As I already said, it’s hard to answer this question because it is too early to gauge how much they improved in the off-season. What I can say pretty definitively however, is that both Chytil and Andresson will be given every opportunity to make the roster this year. Whether or not they make the roster I believe will largely be reliant on how well they perform in the various pre-season events, including the prospect development camp, the Traverse City prospect tournament and the pre-season games. As things currently stand with the roster (again, I remind you that I’m writing this answer on July 3), I would bet that both make the team out of camp, and should perform well enough relative to the competition for their roster spots to stick with the team for the long haul. However, a lot can happen between now and the start of the season, and they both need to prove that they deserve the spot during the pre-season. Also, I would like to add that if either (or both) start the season in Hartford, that is not necessarily a bad thing, and people shouldn’t freak out. They are both still very young, and fairly raw in their abilities, and this Hartford team should have enough talent on the roster this year to help with their development, should it come down to it.[/text_output][image type=”circle” float=”none” src=”2335″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][line id=”” class=”” style=””][text_output]Next up, Lou Giordano hits me with an equally difficult to answer, but very important question about the Rangers defense.[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2721″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]Similar to the previous question, I think the answer largely depends on how well the Rangers younger players developed in the off-season. Also, did Brendan Smith decide to give a shit this off-season, or did he spend it boozing at weddings again? For the record, I’m all for letting players live their life, but it was clear that Smith put it little work last off-season, and it showed in his play during the season, leading to his demotion to the AHL.
With that said, given the hypothetical pitched by Lou in which the Rangers options are all currently on the team/in the prospect pipeline, I think the answer to the question of who specifically is in the lineup on opening night breaks down as follows:
Locks – Assuming health, Kevin Shattenkirk and Brady Skjei are the only two defenseman I’d be willing to bet my next paycheck on being in the lineup on opening night. While I wouldn’t bet my paycheck on it, given the current competitive landscape, I’m confident enough that Marc Staal will do enough to win the benefit of the doubt and have new head coach David Quinn insert him into the lineup on opening night to include him in the locks. While I am certainly not the biggest Marc Staal fan (more on that later), I think that he would need to have a truly miserable pre-season, coupled with multiple kids having excellent pre-seasons, for Quinn to not at least give the veteran Staal the first shot at consistent playing time among the non-Shattenkirk & Skjei defensemen. I won’t argue if someone feels that Staal should be in the next grouping, but I’d be pretty stunned if a healthy Marc Staal isn’t in the lineup on opening night. To be clear, this isn’t me saying that Staal is such a good player that he should be considered a lock based on ability (again, more on this later), this is me saying that based on how most teams operate, his contract and the competition on the left side, I would be shocked if he at least wasn’t given the starting nod on opening night.
Likely Opening Night Starters – To be honest, I wouldn’t go out of my way to bet on anyone in this section to be in the lineup on opening night. I really do think that, after the three players listed in the locks section, it is a wide-open competition to make the opening night lineup. That said, I do think Neal Pionk and Brendan Smith have a leg up on the competition, and if I had to bet, I’d say both make the initial roster.
While Pionk posted pedestrian-at-best advanced stats last season, he impressed the hell out of me once he was given the full-time gig, and I believe an opening night lineup spot will be his to lose. He was trusted with some of the toughest minutes on the team in the latter portions of the season last year, and he quite frankly just looked like he belonged out there against the opposition’s best each night. While he posted some pretty poor advanced metrics last year (particularly shot attempt-based metrics), he finished the season with 14 points in 28 games, half of which came at 5v5. Most impressively, six of those seven 5v5 points where primary points, good for a primary assists per-60 of 0.59, placing him in the 96th percentile of NHL defensemen.
Dominic Galamini Jr. recently updated his HERO Charts Player Evaluation Tool, which now depicts the scoring tier probabilities and shot impacts (offensively and defensively) for each NHL player. The scoring tier probabilities are based off of the method he outlined in a recent Hockey-Graphs article on comparing scoring talent; to summarize, it plugs players’ 5v5 primary points per-60 data into a complex statistical model that generates the probabilities of each player maintaining their prior level of play. As you can see in the image below, the model has Pionk at a 50% chance of being a first-pairing defenseman based on his 5v5 primary point production last year, but he had negative offensive and defensive shot attempt impacts. For comparison’s sake, I’ve also provided the chart of John Gilmour, who posted stronger shot impact numbers, but projects as a likely third-pairing or depth defenseman.[/text_output]
Competing for the Last Spot – To this point, I’ve named five players as opening night starters, two right-handed defensemen—Kevin Shattenkirk and Neal Pionk—and three lefties: Marc Staal, Brendan Smith and Brady Skjei. If David Quinn wants to stick with a lineup of three lefties and three righties, that leaves one righty spot open. If I were Quinn and I decided to go with this roster construction, I would give Tony DeAngelo every opportunity in training camp and the pre-season to prove that he deserves this spot. On pure ability alone, DeAngelo is comfortably the best option left on the board for the final right-handed slot. I thought he performed well enough at the end of last season before he got hurt to prove to me that he can play at the NHL level. Sure, he still has a lot of work to do, but the upside and ability is there, and it’s on him and the coaching staff to help him put it all together. Based on how he performed last season, Dominic’s Player Evaluation tool isn’t quite sure what to make of him, but has it at an 80% likelihood that his production can warrant at least a third-pair responsibility.[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2724″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]However, Brendan Smith’s presence in the lineup opens the gates a bit more as to who can win that final spot. While Smith is a left-handed defenseman, he has played a lot on the right side, and his best moments with the Rangers came while he played the right side with Skjei on the left during the 2017 playoffs. If Quinn is open to slotting Smith onto the right side, that leaves the door open for Fredrik Claesson or John Gilmour to earn that final left-side spot. In this scenario, the decision here likely comes down to if Quinn wants more of an offensive presence on the blue line (Gilmour), or defensive presence (Claesson). Both are 25 years old, so age doesn’t play a role here.
Having Smith play the right side also leaves the door cracked for either Libor Hajek or Ryan Lindgren to make the opening night roster. Personally, I don’t believe either is quite ready to make the roster out of camp, and I think it’s far more likely that they can be called up during the year for a shot in the pros if they impress in Hartford. However, as I spoke about earlier with Andersson and Chytil, I haven’t seen either play in a while now, so it’s entirely plausible that they worked hard enough and developed their game enough to impress Quinn and his staff in the pre-season.
So, to make a long story short, if I had to place a bet right this instant on who I believe will be in the starting lineup for the Rangers on defense for opening night, I would go with Kevin Shattenkirk, Brady Skjei, Marc Staal, Neal Pionk, Brendan Smith and Tony DeAngelo. However, if I was David Quinn, I would make it known that everyone is starting this season with a clean slate, and all spots are up for grabs. If Staal has a terrible showing while Fredrik Claesson or John Gilmour do well, give one of them the opening night spot. If DeAngelo doesn’t impress but Smith and Ryan Lindgren both kill it, then slot Smith on the right and give Lindgren a shot. There are a number of hypotheticals along these lines I can pitch, but the point is, I’m hoping that Quinn keeps an open mind, and plays the six defenseman that prove they deserve the opening night starting spots the most.[/text_output][line id=”” class=”” style=””][text_output]The final Rangers questions I got are courtesy of Brooklyn Sports Guy (Greg Sirico from the Odd Man Rush podcast) and E.J. McCarthy. I could literally write 10,000 words on my answers to these questions, as they are in essence asking me to lay out my plan for the Rangers for the remaining of the off-season. However, for the sake of brevity, and my own sanity, I’ll try to keep this as short and sweet and possible, while also providing enough context to accompany my opinions.[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2725″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]My primary objective is to maintain roster and cap flexibility until an opportunity presents itself that is truly worthy of using this flexibility on. To be honest, I do not believe that such an opportunity will present itself this year. Yes, I know of the Erik Karlsson rumors, but at the time I am writing this, Rick Carpiniello, David Pagnotta and other reputable reports are reporting that the Rangers are no longer in the mix, so I’m choosing to believe them, and therefore not consider trading for Karlsson a realistic option.
The Rangers currently find themselves in a situation where they have a bevy of cap space, a fairly strong pipeline of prospects (first time I can say that with a straight face about the Rangers in a long, long time), and a number of tradable assets. While hockey is certainly not to the extent of basketball in terms of the impact one or two star players can have, I think you are fooling yourself if you think it’s likely a team can win without at least one true elite-level talent, with the emphasis on the word at least. Sure, Vegas was a great story, and every year there are teams based on depth that make good runs, but if you look at the teams that win the Stanley Cup, it’s almost always a team with multiple top-notch, no-brainer all stars.
So, with that said, the reason for building up this sort of flexibility is to either outright acquire an elite talent via free agency or a trade, or to acquire assets that can hopefully turn into such a player (high draft picks or blue-chip prospects). Personally, I believe the best path to building a Cup contender is to draft your core, and then supplement this core via trades and free agency. If you look at teams like Nashville, Winnipeg, Toronto and Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh etc., they are all primarily built through the draft, and then supplemented by savvy trades and free agent signings. Sure, some of Nashville’s biggest pieces were traded for, but they were able to trade for those big pieces, like Ryan Johansen and P.K. Subban, by trading away excellent players that they drafted themselves. This is the route I am hoping the Rangers take. Stock pile as many picks and prospects as possible, patiently develop them into NHL players, and hope that through this process you get at least two or three players that rise to the top and can carry your team to contention. Once you have your core of players that can carry the roster, you can then make free agent signings or trades to complement your core and fill out the rest of the roster.
In terms of some of the specifics asked in those questions, here are some bullets on my personal thoughts:
- I’m happy the Rangers did not make any big splashes in UFA, and I hope that any signings going further are low-risk and cost-effective options with some upside. Anthony Duclair would be a nice flyer to take for example. A younger player with talent, that for whatever reason hasn’t panned out yet in his career. I also wouldn’t be opposed to Calvin De Haan if the deal is right, because I think he’s a solid second-pair defenseman that, at the very least, could serve as a stop-gap until some of the Rangers lefty prospects are ready or can be traded for some assets at the trade deadline. However, given the reports of multiple teams being in on him, it seems like he’ll obtain a contract above what I would be comfortable giving him to fulfill that role.
- In terms of the RFAs, given the fact that Namestnikov is already signed, I am actively shopping both Jimmy Vesey and Ryan Spooner, and trading at least one of them to the highest bidder; if the Rangers are able to acquire packages for both that they feel adds value to the rebuild, then I’m not opposed to trading both. Kevin Hayes is a player I am listening to offers on, and if I get a trade package that wows me than I am happy to deal him. However, I wouldn’t say I’m actively shopping Hayes in the manner I am with Spooner and Vesey. For Brady Skjei, while he had a very disappointing season last year, I’m still betting on him and working to lock him up long-term. In terms of contracts for each, should the Rangers decide to sign them, I wrote a full article about that a few weeks ago. However, if you don’t want to read it, the below image is the summary table I included with my contract predictions for each RFA.
- In terms of additional off-season moves, I’m down with #TheVision (courtesy of HockeyStatMiner and Fitz), which in essence is using the team’s cap space as an asset, and acquiring bad contracts in exchange for assets. While I may not totally be on board with how aggressive HSM or Fitz may want to be with regards to some of the moves they outlined, there is certainly sound logic to it all, and I’m all for making some of these moves, provided it doesn’t interfere too much with my primary objective of maintaining cap and roster flexibility.
- In terms of my evaluation of players versus new systems, I honestly don’t have enough information to answer this. I understand what Quinn did at Boston University, but I’d be lying if I said I knew the intricacies of the system he employed at BU to the level at which I knew AV’s system. Further, I think it’s foolish to assume that Quinn would employ the exact same system in the NHL as he did in college. In Boston his teams typically played a possession-style game and he wasn’t afraid to go with talented youth over veterans, and I think that sort of mentality could benefit the rebuilding Rangers greatly.
The first thing I would do, is seek out writers or analysts for the team the player came from that I trust, and see what I can find from there. For example, if the Rangers acquired a player from the Flames, the first thing I’m doing is checking out Kent Wilson’s Twitter timeline and article archive to dig up whatever I can on the player. From there, as an analytically-inclined blogger, I would turn to resources such as Corsica, Bill Comeau’s SKATR comparison tool, CJ Turtoro’s All Three Zone player comparison tool, Sean Tierney’s ICE Ratings tool, Dominic Galamini Jr.’s Player Evaluation Tool and Ryan Stimson’s Player Traits and Performance Comparison tool to learn as much as I can about the performance and skill profiles of the player and how that may translate going forward. If I’m feeling really ambitious, I might dig up some game footage of the player to watch and learn a bit more, but if I’m being honest, I usually save that sort of time-consuming scouting for my prospect analysis.
To be clear, I’m not necessarily advocating only using statistical analysis and reading other’s opinions on players to learn about a player. But in a situation where the Rangers acquire a player I’m unfamiliar with, it is far more time-efficient to leverage the great resources I just listed, and read about the player from smart writers that focus on that team, than to attempt to do my own scouting on the player. I have a full-time job, I’m married and I am a new Dad, so there is only so much time in the day I have to use on this sort of thing.
As a side note, if anyone reading this has any questions about how to use or interpret the results of any of the tools I just linked too, please don’t hesitate to reach out to me to ask. I’m happy to help anyone who is interested in learning. I plan to add write-ups about how to use many of these tools to my Hockey Lexicon, but in the meantime, please just reach out to me if you’d like to learn about those great evaluation tools.[/text_output][line id=”” class=”” style=””][text_output]My last hockey-related question is one that many in the analytics community, myself included, are rather passionate about. Aaron Friedman posted the following question about perhaps the dumbest stat that somehow got popularized in the NHL, and that is plus/minus.[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2729″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]First, I want to make one thing perfectly clear, saying plus/minus is a bad stat IS NOT saying that goal differential is not important (although, there is an argument for that as well, but that’s an argument for another day). The reason that plus/minus is a stupid stat, is because it was constructed in an extremely flawed manner that heavily biases the stat towards players that play on the penalty kill, and against players that play on the power play.
Plus/minus awards players a “plus” when they are on the ice when their team scores a goal on the penalty kill or at even strength, including when a goalie is pulled. Conversely, a “minus” is attributed to a player on the ice when their team allows a goal at even strength or a shorthanded goal. Herein lies the problem; it somewhat randomly decides which goals are worthy of attributing a plus or a minus. According to plus/minus rating, being on the ice for an opponent’s goal when your goalie is pulled is deemed worthy enough to earn you a minus, but being on the ice when the opponent scores a power play goal, despite you actually having a goalie in the net, does not.
On the flip side, if your team scores an empty net goal while you are on the ice, you earn a plus, but if you are on the ice for a power play goal, you do not. This skews the stat to unfairly help penalty killers, many of which are also not on the ice with their own goalie pulled and the team is pressing to tie up the game. It also unfairly hurts players that log a lot of power play time, whom similarly are likely to be on the ice with their own goalie pulled.
If you are a fan of goal differential related stats, and you think it is important to note who is on the ice when goals are scored for and against, than PLEASE just use straight up, all situations goal differential, or use 5v5 goal differential. But for the love of all that is good in the world, stop using this bullshit, flawed plus/minus statistic, that was constructed in a manner to greatly benefit penalty killers and hurt power play specialists.
As for why everyone shits on Marc Staal despite having a good plus/minus, please re-read the above rant and then understand the context of how Staal is used. Last year Marc Staal posted a +11 in plus/minus, but in terms of 5v5 goal differential that number comes down to a +2, and across all situations he was a -10. Interesting how much less rosy Staal’s performance looks when you use goal-related stats that aren’t skewed in a manner to benefit a player like Staal, who received 1,334 total minutes of ice time last year, with only 2 minutes on the power play but a team-leading 202 minutes on the penalty kill.
His goal differential stats though by far aren’t the reason why people rip on Staal. His +2 all situation goal differential was actually 2nd best on the team amongst defenseman, behind on Ryan McDonagh. The reason everyone rips on Staal is because, quite frankly, he’s just not a good hockey player anymore. Sure, people like to throw words like “dependable” and “reliable” when they talk about him, but to be quite honest, those are often crutch phrases used by analysts who don’t understand the modern game, and still wax poetic about gritty defenseman who throw their weight around and block shots.
At 5v5 last year, Marc Staal was the second worst defenseman on the Rangers in terms of teammate relative shot share with a -3.34 RelT CF% (for the record, teammate relative stats are much more useful that traditional relative metrics, so please stop lazily quoting traditional relative metrics; if you want to know more about this, just ask me or check out this piece I wrote a few months back). In terms of expected goals share, which account for shot quality and quantity, Staal was third worst among Rangers defenseman relative to his teammates, with a -1.39 RelT xGF%. Keep in mind, both shot share (Corsi) and expected goals share include what the team does both offensively and defensively when a player is on the ice, and when Staal is on the ice, the play is often tilted towards the Rangers zone. If you’d like a more graphical view of why people rip on Staal, below are his SKATR chart and his HERO chart. As I mentioned earlier, if you have any interest in learning how to read and interpret these, please just let me know, and I’m happy to help. But long story short, the HERO chart (left) indicates that Staal is a 3rd pairing defenseman at best, while his SKATR chart (right) shows a very poor level of performance across the board.[/text_output]
However, I think on the flip side, Dolan is an excellent hockey owner, relatively speaking at least. Now, this isn’t necessarily a high bar that the other owners have set, as most of them are cranky old white guys that pay a commissioner to claim that there is no link between CTE and concussions because god forbid they have to open their wallets to help the ex-players that suffered brain damage in part, due to prior negligence on the part of the teams and the league as a while. I mean Christ, when you choose to pay a commissioner that makes Roger Goodell look forward-thinking, you know you have a serious issue.
But back to my point, James Dolan is a good hockey owner. He always spends to the cap (when it is warranted at least), he spends as much is needed on off-ice resources (scouting, training staff, coaching, medical etc.), he for the most part stays out of the way of team operations and allows the people he pays to do their job, and he has been vocally against NHL lockouts. In today’s NHL, if you are an owner that opens up your wallet for the benefit of the team, and you aren’t in favor of lockouts, that automatically puts you in the upper-echelon of league owners.
As far as how I would feel if he sold both the Knicks and the Rangers (which I don’t think is happening FWIW; I’m a financial economics major with good business acumen, and everything those reports tells me is he is simply making business decisions that will make both entities more profitable and put more money into his own pockets), my answer is it depends on who buys the team. Obviously, I’d be thrilled if he sold the Knicks, and commissioner Adam Sterling seems to do an excellent job in finding good, progressive owners to take on teams when needed. However, if he sold the Rangers, I’d be very worried about who would be buying the team, because as I stated earlier, I think Dolan is a good hockey owner, and I think Gary Bettman cannot be trusted.[/text_output][custom_headline type=”left” level=”h5″ looks_like=”h5″ accent=”true” id=”” class=”” style=””]Hot Takes[/custom_headline][text_output]That’s all I have for today everyone, thank you for reading. I will leave you all with one parting gift. I asked if anyone had any hot takes they wanted me to publish at the end here, just as a fun little segment. Below are the three best hot takes I got, presented without comment. Enjoy![/text_output][text_output]The first is a DM from Shawn Taggart:[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2735″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]Next, we have another DM, this time courtesy of George Obremski:[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2736″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]I received the following from a friend via text message, who wishes to remain anonymous and not deal with some of the nutjobs on Twitter over this:[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2737″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][text_output]The remaining hot takes were all posted on Twitter and you can see who sent them in the images, so I will just list them out.[/text_output][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2738″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2739″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2740″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2741″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2742″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2745″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2746″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””][image type=”thumbnail” float=”none” src=”2749″ alt=”” href=”” title=”” info_content=”” lightbox_caption=”” id=”” class=”aligncenter” style=””]
Author: Drew Way
Diehard New York Rangers fan since 1988! Always has been fascinated by sports statistics, and is a big proponent of supplementing analytics with the eye test. Also a big Yankees, Giants and Knicks fan.